No Contract Gives Video-Production Company Control of Wal-Mart Videos

    Sometimes even the most efficient, sophisticated corporation makes a basic mistake, as illustrated by “Candid Camera: Trove of Videos Vexes Wal-Mart”, a story in The Wall Street Journal earlier this month. 

    From the 1970s until 2006, Wal-Mart employed Flagler Productions Inc. to help produce and film its yearly events for managers and shareholders, which also included entertainment for its annual meeting and sales meetings.  Then, in late 2006, Wal-Mart stopped using Flagler.  The decision came a few days after founder Mike Flagler sold his business to two employees.  Not surprisingly, the loss of Wal-Mart’s business, which was 90% of Flagler’s revenues, decimated the small business, which had to downsize from a 20,000 square foot production facility to an 800 square foot office. 

    Flagler Productions offered to sell its video library of 15,000 tapes to Wal-Mart for several million dollars.  Wal-Mart responded with an offer of $500,000, claiming that the footage would not be of interest to anyone else.  Wal-Mart could not have been more wrong.

    Either Wal-Mart forgot that it didn’t have a contract with Flagler Productions or it genuinely but naively believed that no one else would be interested in the footage.  But no contract equals no control, so nothing prohibits Flagler from selling the tapes to those who may be interested in Wal-Mart’s activities, which includes, in the words of Journal reporter Gary McWilliams, “everyone from business historians and documentary filmmakers to plaintiffs lawyers and union organizers.”

    As an example, McWilliams reports that in 2005, Diane M. Breneman filed suit on behalf of a 12-year-old boy against Wal-Mart and the manufacturer of plastic gasoline can sold in its stores.  The boy was injured when he poured gasoline from the can onto some wet wood he was trying to light, and the can exploded.  The lawsuit alleged that the can was defective because it didn’t have a device that prevented flames from traveling through its spout and exploding.  In court, Wal-Mart’s lawyers denied that the gas can “presented any reasonable foreseeable risk … in the normal and expected use.” 

Ms. Breneman says Flagler Productions located videos of product presentations to Wal-Mart managers in which executives gave parody testimonials about the same brand of gasoline can.  In an apparent coincidence, one manager joked about setting fire to wet wood: "I torched it.  Boom!  Fired right up."  In a separate skit, an employee is seen driving a riding lawn mower into a display of empty gasoline cans.  A Wal-Mart executive vice president observing the collision jokes: "A great gas can.  It didn’t explode."  The tapes were made before the lawsuit was filed.

Breneman will ask the federal court to admit the footage as evidence of the foreseeability of the risk that the cans could catch fire and explode.

    Ordinarily, Wal-Mart controls its corporate records, such as the videotapes, through contracts that restrict their access and use.  But with no contract with Flagler Productions, Wal-Mart’s options are limited, at best.  One of Wal-Mart’s lawyers sent a letter to Flagler Productions in January asserting its “claims to rights in the video library” and film transcripts, but that strikes me as too little, too late. 

    I was going to conclude by asking (rhetorically) how much Wal-Mart would be willing to pay today for Flagler Productions' video library, but it may be easier to figure out how much Wal-Mart isn't willing to pay.  The day after the story appeared in the Journal, Wal-Mart released this letter from Flagler Productions' lawyer, in which he confirmed that in response to Flagler's demand for $150 million for the video library, Wal-Mart had offered $500,000, after which Flagler reduced its demand to $145 million and threatened to look elsewhere to sell the library if Wal-Mart wasn't interested in negotiating.  According to ABC News investigative reporter Brian Ross' blog, Wal-Mart released the letter in order to show that Flagler wanted a more substantial amount for the tapes than media references to "several million dollars" might indicate. 

Ex-Football Coach Removes Lawsuit to Federal Court, Defends Post-Resignation Conduct

    Let me note a few developments in WVU's lawsuit against its former head football coach, Rich Rodriguez.

    Yesterday, Rodriguez removed the lawsuit from the Circuit Court of Monongalia County to the Northern District of West Virginia at Clarksburg, based on an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000 and diversity of citizenship between the parties.  Here are Rodriguez's notice of removal and his notice of filing of notice of removal.  Rodriguez alleges that plaintiff WVU's Board of Governors is a West Virginia resident, while he

had established residency in the State of Michigan at the time this lawsuit was commenced [on December 27, 2007].  As has been widely reported in the local press, Coach Rodriguez had been physically present in the State of Michigan and had a clear intention to remain there at the time of the commencement of this action as the football coach at the University of Michigan.

West Virginia University Board of Governors v. Rodriguez, Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-00041.  The action has been assigned to Chief Judge Irene M. Keeley.

    For completeness, here is Exhibit D to WVU's complaint, which is Rodriguez's resignation letter to WVU Athletic Director Ed Pastilong, and which I failed to include in my original post about WVU's lawsuit against Rodriguez

    But this week, what is more significant than the procedural development are the revelations that, after announcing his departure for UM, Rodriguez destroyed or removed files that may be WVU's property (although his agent has described them as Rodriguez's personal files), and  used his WVU-issued cell phone to call recruits, presumably to inform them of his plans.  Because the news about the destruction of the files has been widely reported, for now, here are Dave Hickman's article in Tuesday's Charleston Gazette and Mike Casazza's article in yesterday's (Charleston) Daily Mail

    Casazza also has an article about the cell phone use in today's Daily Mail,  The paper obtained the cell phone records from WVU under the West Virginia Freedom of Information Act. 

Court Rejects Claim of Spoliation Against Insurance Company

     The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has rejected a claim for negligent spoliation of evidence against an insurance company in Mace v. Ford Motor Company, No. 33080 (May 25, 2007).

    In February 2002, Terry Mace was in an accident involving the rollover of her Ford Explorer. Her insurance company, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, declared the Explorer to be a total loss, paid Mace, and sold it to a salvage company in April 2002.

     Mace and her husband filed suit in January 2004 against Ford Motor Company and the dealership where she bought the Explorer, alleging product liability and negligence claims.  At that point, however, she could not obtain some necessary parts of the Explorer because they had been removed as part of the vehicle’s salvage.  The plaintiffs then amended their complaint to assert a claim against Liberty Mutual for negligent spoliation of evidence. 

Continue Reading...